<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
<p>Bill Ballard wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>At 10:05 PM -0400 6/10/03, Mark Davidson wrote:
<br>>I wouldn't say that static balancing is meaningless, but for Stanwood's
<br>>system to work, you have to have smooth weights AND smooth geometry.
I think
<br>>the latter is understood, but not necessarily emphasized enough.
Without
<br>>smooth geometry, the system falls apart pretty quickly.
<p>Actually I like a system which is based on both smooth weight AND
<br>geometry.</blockquote>
<p><br>And Actually actually, this is just yet another one of those misconceptions
that keep getting circulated about what Stanwood is and isnt. Of course....
of <b><i>course</i></b> static weight balancing is contigent upon reasonably
good, (for not to say optimal) geometry. And of course getting this geometry
at least within acceptable parameters is a prerequisite for doing the job,
and for checking BW for that matter.
<p>If there is anything that is not understood, it is that Stanwood does
not, has not, and no doubt will never claim anything else.
<p>In point of fact... the whole method provides an excellent tool for
finding an smoothing certain aspects of geometric issues commonly overlooked.
<p>--
<p>Richard Brekne
<br>RPT, N.P.T.F.
<br>UiB, Bergen, Norway
<br><A HREF="mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no">mailto:rbrekne@broadpark.no</A>
<br><A HREF="http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html">http://home.broadpark.no/~rbrekne/ricmain.html</A>
<br><A HREF="http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html">http://www.hf.uib.no/grieg/personer/cv_RB.html</A>
<br> </html>